add_height_range_modifier

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication that this is a mutating operation that attaches a modifier to an object, no mention of required state/permissions, reversibility, or how the modifier interacts with existing settings. Only 'v2' implies a versioned engine constraint, which is not actionable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is good, but it is concise by virtue of under-specification rather than editorial discipline. The parenthetical adds little information density.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-required-parameter mutating tool with a nested settings object, zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema documentation, this description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine accepted settings keys, range semantics, or the effect of the call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Height range' loosely maps to z_from/z_to, but object_id, the units/ordering of the range, and especially the open-ended 'settings' string map (nested object with additionalProperties) are completely undefined.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase fragment ('Different settings for a height range of an object') that restates the tool name rather than stating an action; the verb 'add' exists only in the name, and 'different settings' is ambiguous. It names the resource (object height range) but does not distinguish this tool from the sibling set_variable_layer_height, which also manipulates per-height behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to set_variable_layer_height or set_setting. The only hint is the parenthetical '(GUI engine, v2)', which is an environment tag, not a usage condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.